Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashad McCrorey
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Rashad McCrorey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fail to see how McCroery is notable as a tourism chief of a small town, he doesn't meet NPOL in the slightest, and I'm not even sure what the claim is here. He's had a few interviews but the rest of the sources are unreliable or not in depth coverage. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There actually seems to be quite a bit of substantial coverage out there, including this Forbes article and this Atlanta Black Star article, that should be added to the article. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Contributor pieces aren't reliable per WP:FORBESCON and the Atlanta Blackstar article is hardly independent coverage. Not to mention they're both basically the same snippets as the New York Daily News article, which again, isn't coverage of him and lastly the Blackstar isn't written by their staff (if they even have any), it's by a "Digital content creator". PRAXIDICAE💕 16:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
the Atlanta Blackstar article is hardly independent coverage.
What do you mean by this? Also, there is no policy that I know of that an article must be written by staff. Many publications use freelance writers. And what's wrong with being a "digital content creator?" Anyone writing for digital news is a digital content creator, are they not? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)- Our entire WP:RS policy covers this and we do not consider contributor pieces to be reliable sources, that applies beyond just Forbes. And no, PR marketers aka "digital content creators" aren't beacons of journalism. In any case, all of these "articles" about him, even if they were reliable, which they are not, amount to nothing more than WP:BLP1E and hardly even that. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Our entire WP:RS policy covers this and we do not consider contributor pieces to be reliable sources, that applies beyond just Forbes
Do you mind pointing to where it says that? I'm having trouble finding anything about freelance vs staff in general. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)- For starters, the entire discussion surrounding WP:FORBESCON. Start there, then read WP:RS, WP:V and many discussions on WP:RSN. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- So, there's nothing that says that? That's all I wanted to know. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are literally 14+ different discussions on FORBESCON alone that discuss contributor pieces at length. Pretending it doesn't say that is disruptive. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Those discussions are about Forbes.com in particular, and about it being a WP:SELFPUBLISH blog. That does not apply to Atlanta Black Star, or the NYT, or anyone else that uses freelance reporting. It sounds like you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about NYT, which doesn't even appear in this article. As far as self published blogs, WP:SPS also applies but no, we do not accept contributor pieces unless they are proven SMEs in which case we attribute what is said and also WP:RSOPINION applies, which you'd know if you bothered to read any of the discussions that were linked, not to mention WP:UCG which seems the most obvious. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- You may need to consider these sources as they pass for reliable sources [1] [2] under WP:AFSL Kwamevaughan (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- nope, this is an op ed. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I sent two links which pass WP:AFSL you however ignored [3]. I don't know what the end goal is here but I believe the article has been properly sourced and just as @Pyrrho the Skipper said you're just exhibiting a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT instead of a fair judgement. Kwamevaughan (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- nope, this is an op ed. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- You may need to consider these sources as they pass for reliable sources [1] [2] under WP:AFSL Kwamevaughan (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about NYT, which doesn't even appear in this article. As far as self published blogs, WP:SPS also applies but no, we do not accept contributor pieces unless they are proven SMEs in which case we attribute what is said and also WP:RSOPINION applies, which you'd know if you bothered to read any of the discussions that were linked, not to mention WP:UCG which seems the most obvious. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Those discussions are about Forbes.com in particular, and about it being a WP:SELFPUBLISH blog. That does not apply to Atlanta Black Star, or the NYT, or anyone else that uses freelance reporting. It sounds like you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are literally 14+ different discussions on FORBESCON alone that discuss contributor pieces at length. Pretending it doesn't say that is disruptive. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- So, there's nothing that says that? That's all I wanted to know. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- For starters, the entire discussion surrounding WP:FORBESCON. Start there, then read WP:RS, WP:V and many discussions on WP:RSN. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Our entire WP:RS policy covers this and we do not consider contributor pieces to be reliable sources, that applies beyond just Forbes. And no, PR marketers aka "digital content creators" aren't beacons of journalism. In any case, all of these "articles" about him, even if they were reliable, which they are not, amount to nothing more than WP:BLP1E and hardly even that. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Contributor pieces aren't reliable per WP:FORBESCON and the Atlanta Blackstar article is hardly independent coverage. Not to mention they're both basically the same snippets as the New York Daily News article, which again, isn't coverage of him and lastly the Blackstar isn't written by their staff (if they even have any), it's by a "Digital content creator". PRAXIDICAE💕 16:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This article has been properly sourced and thus passes for WP:GNG. The sources provided are credible under WP:RS and WP:AFSL : [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] As such, if there are no opposing comments, then it is best to keep the article. Otherwise, it will be relisted. Further comments should be discussed on the Talk Page. Kwamevaughan (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep When reading https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes.com_contributors
I saw New York Daily News and ABC World News listed as acceptable sources where Forbes contributor was not accepted.
Subject has New York Daily News article which entire article was about subject being in Africa during the coronavirus pandemic.
Subject has 2 separate ABC World News articles with several paragraphs dedicated to him near the end of the articles not just a passing mention discussing racism in America.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/black-americans-leaving-homes-start-black-communities/story?id=73344171
When I searched
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Africa/Africa_Sources_List
Under Ghana they are 8 news affiates listed as credible sites subject has articles about becoming a chief in Ghana in 4 of the 8.
https://www.myjoyonline.com/rashad-mccrorey-installed-tourism-chief-of-elmina/
https://www.gbcghanaonline.com/general/mccrorey-made-tourism-chief/2022/
https://3news.com/newly-enstooled-tourism-chief-returns-to-us-to-begin-campaign/
I dont believe anything significant needs to be added to the article but here are two more articles not mentioned supporting subject being an authority figure https://www.okayafrica.com/ghana-chief-of-tourism/
This article passes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline
And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Give Up (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets general notability guidelines, can be expanded per references cited above. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.